Americans Fight For Right To Bear Arms - At Work

[watcharacters]

There are some really dumb Yanks out there !

America has no monopoly on ignorance and stupidity.

By the way, from where do you hail?

[DocN]

"There is, in fact, ONE law that spells this out.

It is called the Second Amendment to the US Constitution."

Explain one thing, please: why is it called AMENDMENT?

Is it, because it was AMENDED before?

...and does that mean, it can never be AMENDED again?

[Crushdepth]

To hell with that. I demand the right to bring my RPG to work. You never know when someone's going to try and take you out with a tank.

[chuckd]

"There is, in fact, ONE law that spells this out.

It is called the Second Amendment to the US Constitution."

Explain one thing, please: why is it called AMENDMENT?

Is it, because it was AMENDED before?

...and does that mean, it can never be AMENDED again?

If you are going to keep taking a position opposing the US Constitution, you might want to read about the Constitution first.

The following links will tell you more than you know now...and that's a certainty.

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

http://constitutionus.com/

Edited January 10, 2013 by chuckd

[Chicog]

"There is, in fact, ONE law that spells this out.

It is called the Second Amendment to the US Constitution."

Explain one thing, please: why is it called AMENDMENT?

Is it, because it was AMENDED before?

...and does that mean, it can never be AMENDED again?

If you are going to keep taking a position opposing the US Constitution, you might want to read about the Constitution first.

The following links will tell you more than you know now...and that's a certainty.

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

http://constitutionus.com/

Chuck,

Why do you need links when he's stating the obvious?

They are called amendments for a reason. I've already brought it up, the Volstead Act is the perfect example.

[chuckd]

"There is, in fact, ONE law that spells this out.

It is called the Second Amendment to the US Constitution."

Explain one thing, please: why is it called AMENDMENT?

Is it, because it was AMENDED before?

...and does that mean, it can never be AMENDED again?

If you are going to keep taking a position opposing the US Constitution, you might want to read about the Constitution first.

The following links will tell you more than you know now...and that's a certainty.

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

http://constitutionus.com/

Chuck,

Why do you need links when he's stating the obvious?

They are called amendments for a reason. I've already brought it up, the Volstead Act is the perfect example.

The Volstead Act was added properly by a States referendum as outlined in the Constitution. It was further repealed in the same manner.

If all you anti-gun zealots wish to repeal the Second Amendment there is a way to do it.

For those that are not familiar with the Constitution, the links I provided show exactly how to do just that.

The Constitution was adopted in 1787 and the first 10 Amendments were added in 1791. From 1791 to 2013 there have been an additional 17 Amendments added. Since its adoption in 1787 and for a period of 225 years there have been a total of 27 Amendments, or one every 8 years and 4 months on average. It isn't something that is done lightly.

[Naam]

please give me one valid reason, oh disturbed-one, why should i be offended that you support charity organisations or why any other claim you made should have offended me? i asked a few rational and logical questions which i think were justified. based on your perspective you answered them but without offending me.

I am sorry, I choose some wrong wordings. I hope, oh Master of Sarcasm, you are offended by the horrible things I mentioned...not by charities I choose to attend.

what part of "i am not offended" is it you don't understand?

[Chicog]

The Constitution was adopted in 1787 and the first 10 Amendments were added in 1791. From 1791 to 2013 there have been an additional 17 Amendments added. Since its adoption in 1787 and for a period of 225 years there have been a total of 27 Amendments, or one every 8 years and 4 months on average. It isn't something that is done lightly.

Yes Chuck, so we agree the constitution is designed to be amended if required.

Granted I doubt it will happen, but at least there is no point elaborating further.

Now, back to the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons ban. Do you agree that they caused a marked decline in gun deaths?

[DocN]

please give me one valid reason, oh disturbed-one, why should i be offended that you support charity organisations or why any other claim you made should have offended me? i asked a few rational and logical questions which i think were justified. based on your perspective you answered them but without offending me.

I am sorry, I choose some wrong wordings. I hope, oh Master of Sarcasm, you are offended by the horrible things I mentioned...not by charities I choose to attend.

what part of "i am not offended" is it you don't understand?

...thought so!

[DocN]

"There is, in fact, ONE law that spells this out.

It is called the Second Amendment to the US Constitution."

Explain one thing, please: why is it called AMENDMENT?

Is it, because it was AMENDED before?

...and does that mean, it can never be AMENDED again?

If you are going to keep taking a position opposing the US Constitution, you might want to read about the Constitution first.

The following links will tell you more than you know now...and that's a certainty.

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

http://constitutionus.com/

Opposing the US constitution?

I am doing nothing like that.

But I am thinking, that laws have to be changed as time moves on.

What was right in the 70's ...let alone the 1800's ...may not be right in 2013....

[Sing_Sling]

"There is, in fact, ONE law that spells this out.

It is called the Second Amendment to the US Constitution."

Explain one thing, please: why is it called AMENDMENT?

Is it, because it was AMENDED before?

...and does that mean, it can never be AMENDED again?

If you are going to keep taking a position opposing the US Constitution, you might want to read about the Constitution first.

The following links will tell you more than you know now...and that's a certainty.

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

http://constitutionus.com/

Opposing the US constitution?

I am doing nothing like that.

But I am thinking, that laws have to be changed as time moves on.

What was right in the 70's ...let alone the 1800's ...may not be right in 2013....

Yes, but now you're just making sense - stop it

[koheesti]

There is a process for amending the Constitution. Issuing an executive order to repeal one of the original Bill of Rights is NOT the way to do it. If done, that will be the start of the revolution for sure.

[DocN]

"There is, in fact, ONE law that spells this out.

It is called the Second Amendment to the US Constitution."

Explain one thing, please: why is it called AMENDMENT?

Is it, because it was AMENDED before?

...and does that mean, it can never be AMENDED again?

If you are going to keep taking a position opposing the US Constitution, you might want to read about the Constitution first.

The following links will tell you more than you know now...and that's a certainty.

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

http://constitutionus.com/

Opposing the US constitution?

I am doing nothing like that.

But I am thinking, that laws have to be changed as time moves on.

What was right in the 70's ...let alone the 1800's ...may not be right in 2013....

Yes, but now you're just making sense - stop it

...sorry....

[Chicog]

There is a process for amending the Constitution. Issuing an executive order to repeal one of the original Bill of Rights is NOT the way to do it. If done, that will be the start of the revolution for sure.

Who is talking about doing that?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

[F430murci]

There is a process for amending the Constitution. Issuing an executive order to repeal one of the original Bill of Rights is NOT the way to do it. If done, that will be the start of the revolution for sure.

Who is talking about doing that?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

Jeez, I shouldn't look. This stuff is like a car wreck. You cannot help but look.

A revolution. Oh wow. Haha. Really . . . The thought processes of pro gunners is very entertaining. I am saddened by the millitary people with PTSD. God bless them for their service. Seems like they are turning the guns on themselves more than anything. The number of vet suicides is now exceeding the number killed in service.

. . . Anyway . . . there will be no revolution. Americans are fat and happy. Too much to lose. Absent a very vocal minority, most could care less if guns were taken away. Individuals may say they are against bans in polls, but that does not mean they would lose a nights rest if in fact guns were taken away.

True, you get groups like the Branch Davidians who loved their guns. Some guys out in Montanna believe taxes are unconstituttional, live in compounds and will fight government trying to take their guns.

You get some whacko nut job fruit loops saying they will starting shooting people if guns are taken away. Whatever. These guys are like the guy who shot his pet snake and Dale Earnhart colleciton. Lots of hot, drunken air, but little else.

I suppose some Southern white supremecy guys would blast away if you tried to take their guns away . . . but most Americans are more concerned about where to eat tonight, and what movie to see or what purse or shoes to buy at the mall tomorrow than anything about guns.

Revolution. Ha, not a chance.

Edited January 11, 2013 by F430murci

[Sing_Sling]

I think that about sums it up . . . lots of hot air but when the shit hits the fan the fat boys will just turn over

[simple1]

There is a process for amending the Constitution. Issuing an executive order to repeal one of the original Bill of Rights is NOT the way to do it. If done, that will be the start of the revolution for sure.

Who is talking about doing that?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

Joe Biden has been talking about options that are under consideration by the President.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/world/obama-executive-order-gun-control-laws-executive-action-can-be-taken-biden-says-on-gun-control

[Sing_Sling]

There is a process for amending the Constitution. Issuing an executive order to repeal one of the original Bill of Rights is NOT the way to do it. If done, that will be the start of the revolution for sure.

Who is talking about doing that?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

Joe Biden has been talking about options that are under consideration by the President.

http://www.wptv.com/...-on-gun-control

So . . . no quote as an answer to Chicog's question? Just the usual blustering red herrings by the usual crowd who can't seem to find facts, preferring to throw as much mud as possible to obfuscate the issue.

From your link:

"We haven't decided what this is yet, but we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the Cabinet members."

Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/world/obama-executive-order-gun-control-laws-executive-action-can-be-taken-biden-says-on-gun-control#ixzz2HkMkhXvN

As for the revolution? Yea, I can see it now . . . Billy-Bob and Jethro try to attack Camp Lejeune and get their brains blown all over the place . . . all the other bigmouths and gun-freaks crap their pants and hide their weapons hoping the authorities won't find them.

My father has a rifle - - had. He handed it in, never even got close to using it. Never, so why have it and make it a potential 'gift' to a burglar

[Chicog]

There is a process for amending the Constitution. Issuing an executive order to repeal one of the original Bill of Rights is NOT the way to do it. If done, that will be the start of the revolution for sure.

Who is talking about doing that?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Thaivisa Connect App

Joe Biden has been talking about options that are under consideration by the President.

http://www.wptv.com/...-on-gun-control

And he never mentions repealing the Bill of Rights. I think that's an absurd suggestion.

"The president is going to act. Executive orders, executive action, can be taken," Biden told reporters before meetings with groups representing survivors of mass shootings. "We haven't decided what this is yet, but we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the Cabinet members."

[Exsexyman]

Just when you thought the pro gun nuts couldn't get any lower!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/father-of-sixyearold-boy-killed-in-sandy-hook-massacre-heckled-by-progun-activists-8471178.html

[F430murci]

Just when you thought the pro gun nuts couldn't get any lower!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/father-of-sixyearold-boy-killed-in-sandy-hook-massacre-heckled-by-progun-activists-8471178.html

Disgusting. Selfish messed up people in this world.

[Scott]

Off-topic, baiting post removed. If you have nothing further to add to the discussion, please feel free to NOT post.

[beechguy]

Just when you thought the pro gun nuts couldn't get any lower!

http://www.independe...ts-8471178.html

And once again, no need to let the facts get in the way, after all this is Thai Visa. Seems it was a response to a question, perhaps a rhetorical one by the father, but made to appear worse by the media.

http://news.yahoo.co...-191804834.html

Edited January 31, 2013 by beechguy

[Chicog]

And another office dispute ends in a fatal shooting...

http://m.sky.com/skynews/article/1045275

[Sing_Sling]

And another office dispute ends in a fatal shooting...

http://m.sky.com/sky...article/1045275

Guns don't kill people, offices kill people.

Now, just imagine if everyone had had a gun/rifle/semi . . . Yeeeeha!

From the article cited:

"He said a dispute with someone at the building became heated, and the suspect pulled out a gun and started shooting."

And this is where the problem lies. Take away the guns and harsh words would have been exchanged, shouting probably, maybe even a fist used - though the guy was 70 so doubtful - but no-one would be dead or near death.

Make guns available and problems are escalated. Scared and angry people making pathetic decisions.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[DocN]

Just when you thought the pro gun nuts couldn't get any lower!

http://www.independe...ts-8471178.html

These guys should team up with the Westborough Baptist Church and the tea- baggers!

If evolutionists are still searching for the missing link...half man/ half monkey, they are!

[beechguy]

Just when you thought the pro gun nuts couldn't get any lower!

http://www.independe...ts-8471178.html

These guys should team up with the Westborough Baptist Church and the tea- baggers!

If evolutionists are still searching for the missing link...half man/ half monkey, they are!

And you should do a little research. Have a look at my link in post #413, it's already been shown there was no heckling, it was an editing hatchet job by NBC/MSNBC. And once again, no need to let the truth get in the way is there, that's why I and others can't take your posts seriously.

Here's another link, I think video clip is included.

http://mrctv.org/videos/heckler-msnbc-selectively-edits-video-smear-gun-rights-supporters

Edited January 31, 2013 by beechguy

[F430murci]

Just when you thought the pro gun nuts couldn't get any lower!

http://www.independe...ts-8471178.html

These guys should team up with the Westborough Baptist Church and the tea- baggers!

If evolutionists are still searching for the missing link...half man/ half monkey, they are!

And you should do a little research. Have a look at my link in post #413, it's already been shown there was no heckling, it was an editing hatchet job by NBC/MSNBC. And once again, no need to let the truth get in the way is there, that's why I and others can't take your posts seriously.

Here's another link, I think video clip is included.

http://mrctv.org/videos/heckler-msnbc-selectively-edits-video-smear-gun-rights-supporters

Deference, respect and humility allude some or perhaps just common sense, class and respect. The guy lost his child. Anyone with class or dignity would sit there, keep their mouth shut and have some empathy. If you don't get it, you just don't get it and no reason to argue about it.

[beechguy]

Just when you thought the pro gun nuts couldn't get any lower!

http://www.independe...ts-8471178.html

These guys should team up with the Westborough Baptist Church and the tea- baggers!

If evolutionists are still searching for the missing link...half man/ half monkey, they are!

And you should do a little research. Have a look at my link in post #413, it's already been shown there was no heckling, it was an editing hatchet job by NBC/MSNBC. And once again, no need to let the truth get in the way is there, that's why I and others can't take your posts seriously.

Here's another link, I think video clip is included.

http://mrctv.org/vid...ghts-supporters

Deference, respect and humility allude some or perhaps just common sense, class and respect. The guy lost his child. Anyone with class or dignity would sit there, keep their mouth shut and have some empathy. If you don't get it, you just don't get it and no reason to argue about it.

I get it just fine and agree that silence would have been the better option. The argument from me, is apparently for some it's no problem if major news media misrepresents the situation, never mind the truth.

[Publicus]

Anti Gun people in the USA or from around the world can rant and rave all they want. Anti Gun U.S. politicians can bluster and boast but the right of gun ownership will not be changed. Since it does not seem that the reason that it will not be changed cannot be mentioned here, let me just say It would take a super majority of the U.S. House and Senate and the majority of 50 states to ratify any change - so therefore . IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ...

In recent times SCOTUS - The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in favor of the fact that Americans have the right of INDIVIDUAL gun ownership. Also in recent times - restrictive gun ownership laws have been struck down. Any attempt to ram through new strict gun control legislation will only result in lengthy court cases - which will likely result in the new gun control laws being struck down - based on previous case law... So - I suggest gun control advocates where ever they are - take a deep breath and get over it ... There will be a lot of chest pounding in the coming months - but net net over the coming one - two - three years - nothing will change - we in the USA will keep our guns and we will keep them in places allowed by State law - not Federal law. I suggest anti gun hand wringers concentrate on making it easier to commit and confine pyschotic - disturbed individuals and hire armed guards for schools. And - as individual communities wish - train and arm school officials or even teachers (which has already been done in numerous areas in the USA.

The gang banger on the streets with a handgun and the drive-by shooter in a car in the inner city are among the most visible of the core group who need to be separated from guns such as the Saturday night special.

The rural resident who is many miles from the police station (a volunteer fire station too) may need protection, as we saw in Holcomb, Kansas in 1959 when the six members of the Clutter family were murdered in their homes at night, as the late Truman Capote vividly described to us In Cold Blood.

The gun ownership issue is urban vs rural. Guns in urban areas kill many Americans - a Virginia Tech every day, as has been pointed out. If we're thinking of firearms for the purpose of self-protection and self-defense, then these are the terms of discussion and of lawmaking.

Most rural residents remain closely connected culturally to the original English and northern European settlers of the East Coast of North America, the lands that became the British Colonies until the Revolutionary War of 1776 - 1783. Before and after the Revolution rural Americans needed and prized their muskets. Settlers crossing the Mississippi River needed and prized their firearms, and continue to do so today.

Gun control laws need to be focused on the urban centers of the United States - existing laws need to be amended to address urban violent crime; new laws need to better address matters such as background checks, magazine size/capacity and the like.

Make it clear to rural Americans they can have their guns, preferably shotguns rather than assault rifes. Make clear to rural Americans that existing laws and any new laws are focused on the centers of violent crime in the United States, i.e., the core inner cities.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a leading spokesperson and advocate of more strict and encompassing gun control, as are almost all urban mayors and urban police chiefs of the United States, and I commend everyone on this side of the issue. However, these guys scare the rural gun owners, and even the responsible suburban and exurban gun owners. Consequently, we need rural-state elected officials in Washington to step forward to stand with people like Mayor Bloomberg so that each together, synergistically, can persuade rural gun owners that they are not the target of gun control legislation, and to make clear to the responsible suburban and exurban gun owners who already have cleared background checks they are not the targets of stricter laws whether the laws on the books are to be better enforced or new laws are to be enacted.

We've heard from some rural state U.S. Senators, such as former West Virgina Governor Joe Manchin, now in his first full term in the U.S. Senate, who has said essentially what I have posted here, which reassures most of his hillbilly voters.

The urban mayors and police chiefs cannot move this issue. The effort needs at least a dozen of the Senator Manchins in the Senate and five dozen of 'em in the U.S. House. The only effective approach to gun control is to have and to not have it, i.e., to discretely sort out the responsible citizenry from the specific, identifiable groups of population which need to be denied access to guns. Only federal laws can accomplish this. Members of Congress such as Sen Manchin are the only type of elected official in Washington who can outmanouvre the NRA and the rightwing nasties on talk radio.